This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

Urgel and Gerona (the Spanish forms) are used on this page since it was translated from the Spanish and they are the forms with which I believe most people are more familiar in the Anglophone world. They will remain that way unless every instance of them in the article is changed. I do not think that that is necessary, however. Neither spelling is more correct in English. Srnec 05:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering the main articles use the Catalan form I don't see the reason not to use it here. Also, if the English-speaking world is for some reason to understand better Spanish forms, why does the article contain Cerdanya and not Cerdaña?

I believe the same form should be used for all the locations, and also that the name should be in Catalan, as are the respective articles. --Outlyer 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've homogeneized all the references to Urgell and Girona, the Catalan forms, thatI think are more correct. Besides, if we are to use the Google test (which I've always found unreliable, btw) the Catalan forms return much more results. --RR' 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, nice article here. Just a comment, without wanting to offend anyone or open a can of worms on the issue, but if you are really aiming at an "encyclopedic" article, references to Wilfred being considered as the founder of an hypothetical independent Catalonia should be omitted due to inaccurracy and for the sake of clarity, as well as reference to "Catalan" and "Catalonia" ("When Louis's sons Louis and Carloman marched against Boso, king of Provence, the Catalan counts supported Carlomand, but did not join the ecampaign","the Assembly of Ponthion dealing with the Viking problem which they regarded as meaningless to Catalans", etc.). Wilfred was a frankish vassal of the Carolingian monarchs, ruler of a fief of the Hispanic March. Any connection to the posterior Catalonia, both as a name and as a nation is out of context and misguiding.

Please don't interpret this as the start of yet another argument on national identity. Up to now I've always thought the English Wikipedia is extremely balanced and non-biased most of the time, and that its editors take great pains ensuring that this is so. I think that changing those would greatly contribute to the quality of a very interesting article.

Finally, there's a couple of typos, spelling and grammar mistakes which would need correcting. If you need a hand there I'd be willing to help :) Dr Benway 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "hypothetical independent Catalonia" is awkward and confusing. Perhaps it could be changed to something like "to what is today often represented as an independent Catalonia" (actually, that sounds pretty clunky).

My own recommendation is that some reference be made to how Guifré has been portrayed as man/myth in modern Catalan nationalism. I don't know enough to even attempt this, but I think it would help the article-- especially if it were done in a non-partisan way.JrFace 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would probably do nicely and would be the best solution. And Guifré as a myth in modern nationalism is also a good idea. There's a section in the Spanish version that covers that, and toning the language down a little, I guess we could get something interesting. ;) Cheers! Dr Benway 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a new section at the end titled "Wilfred and Catalonia", and eliminated the consequently redundant statements which are now dealt with there. Also went through a general cleanup of the article and added "reference needed" tags to the statements that certain dwellers of some of these counties had different ethnic roots to the surrounding populations (never heard about that, but then again, taht doesn't mean it isn't true :P ). I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but feel free to bash me over the head if you see some subconscious bias creeping through (don't have one in this respect, but one never knows ;)). Suggestions, corrections, deletions and comments are welcomed :) Dr Benway 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the versions of the name in the article, including the name on the statue in the image, have the L. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I rescind my move request, since it is spelled both ways in reputable publications. It justs seems that I've encountered "Wifred" much more often in specialist literature. And I have never double-checked to make sure they are the same name (etymologically), which is why I thought it was (is) possibly an error. Srnec (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In one place, the article says he was Count of Barcelona until 897, and in another it says 878. I have no idea which is correct, but they can't both be. Can they? --Cwelgo (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)